- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Wouldn’t Hillary’s payments to Fusion GPS also violate campaign finance law?
Posted on 12/12/18 at 7:00 pm to FT
Posted on 12/12/18 at 7:00 pm to FT
If she used campaign funds it could be. Don’t k ow if she did. It does prove she colluded with Russia, though.
This post was edited on 12/12/18 at 7:01 pm
1
Posted on 12/12/18 at 7:27 pm to BBONDS25
Lol no it doesn’t
Posted on 12/12/18 at 7:28 pm to FT
We’ll take your word for it. 
This post was edited on 12/12/18 at 7:29 pm
Posted on 12/12/18 at 7:40 pm to BBONDS25
About time! 
Posted on 12/12/18 at 7:56 pm to RidiculousHype
quote:
Wouldn’t Hillary’s payments to Fusion GPS also violate campaign finance law?
Nah
quote:
How are Hillary’s payments to Fusion GPS any different?
Pretty sure the payments to Perkins Coie were reported. Fusion GPS was a sub of Perkins Coie. Opposition research is a pretty standard campaign expense.
Posted on 12/12/18 at 8:21 pm to RidiculousHype
99% of liberals have never even heard of the Steele dossier. The other 1% think it's a made up conspiracy by the meanie white rayciss republicans.
Posted on 12/12/18 at 9:09 pm to FT
quote:
ft
Posted on 12/12/18 at 9:10 pm to Decatur
quote:
Pretty sure the payments to Perkins Coie were reported. Fusion GPS was a sub of Perkins Coie. Opposition research is a pretty standard campaign expense.
Got it. So it was reported, but as “legal expenses”. I googled around on this point and found this from The Hill:
quote:
The Clinton campaign and the DNC did not comply with their legal obligation to disclose their payments to Fusion for opposition research. Instead, they concealed the fact that any payments were made to Fusion at all. Rather than disclosing the spending, the campaign and the DNC told the FEC the money had gone to their law firm, and the Clinton campaign said that it had made the payments for "legal services."
That was not true. The money was not for "legal services," and to describe it as having been paid to the firm is highly misleading. The firm was a conduit between Fusion and the Clinton campaign and DNC. In other words, money that went to the firm was ultimately paid to Fusion. And Fusion provided no legal services to anyone.
So is it unlawful to lie on an FEC filing or not?
Posted on 12/13/18 at 2:39 am to DaTruth225
quote:
Isn't opposition research usually done through law firms?
No, it’s done through partisan firms/individuals. Depending on the type of race, budget, and background of the target(s) they can do very deep dives. Firm I use has forensic accountants, former FBI, etc and contacts in other countries if things lead there. The good firms will give the campaign a book to source from. Pretty much any negative ad you see is a result of opposition research. Last one I ordered was about 200 pages of info and cost around 50k. Every campaign does it and is reported as a campaign expenditure.
Posted on 12/13/18 at 5:26 am to RidiculousHype
quote:Lol you didn't really expect Rexcatur to reply did you?
Got it. So it was reported, but as “legal expenses”. I googled around on this point and found this from The Hill: quote:The Clinton campaign and the DNC did not comply with their legal obligation to disclose their payments to Fusion for opposition research. Instead, they concealed the fact that any payments were made to Fusion at all. Rather than disclosing the spending, the campaign and the DNC told the FEC the money had gone to their law firm, and the Clinton campaign said that it had made the payments for "legal services." That was not true. The money was not for "legal services," and to describe it as having been paid to the firm is highly misleading. The firm was a conduit between Fusion and the Clinton campaign and DNC. In other words, money that went to the firm was ultimately paid to Fusion. And Fusion provided no legal services to anyone. So is it unlawful to lie on an FEC filing or not?
Posted on 12/13/18 at 5:45 am to Jbird
As was established in the hrc email investigation, lying about does not create intent....sarcasm, for the people not fully awake yet.
At some point, with all of the sh!t the dems throw against the wall to take down Trump, they will undoubtedly find something that hrc has done in he past.
This is all such an obvious joke.
At some point, with all of the sh!t the dems throw against the wall to take down Trump, they will undoubtedly find something that hrc has done in he past.
This is all such an obvious joke.
Posted on 12/13/18 at 8:05 am to RidiculousHype
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/3/20 at 9:09 am
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News